I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 275

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 200 Motion for Discovery Sanctions, as stated on the record at the Motions Hearing on 9/18/12; GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendant Google Inc.'s 209 Motion to Compel, with respect to relief to four categories of documents contained within the original motion that are DENIED as MOOT, as outlined in this Order. Within three days of the date of this Order, the plaintiff shall produce certain documents provided to potential investors by Innovate/Protect, Inc., the plaintiff's parent company, to the defendant with financial information redacted, as stated on the record at the Motions Hearing held on 9/18/12. The parties shall each bear their own expenses with respect to these motions. (See Order for Specifics) Entered and filed 9/18/12. (Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 9/18/12). (ecav, )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8EP 1 8 2012

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division

CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT

I/P ENGINE,

NORFOLK, VA

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v-

Case No.

AOL,

INC.,

et

2:llcv512

al.,

Defendants.
ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff I/P Engine,

Inc.'s Motion for

Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Disclosed Prior Art

(ECF No.

200)

Produce

and

Google

Documents

Inc.'s

{ECF No.

Motion

209).

to

Compel

On September 18,

hearing on these motions.

Jeffrey K.

W.

on

Brothers,

Perlson,
court

Esq.,

Esq.,

the

behalf

2012,

Sherwood,
of

the

Gloria

reasons

to

the Court held a

Esq.,

and Kenneth

plaintiff,

argued on behalf of the defendants.

reporter was

For

argued

Plaintiff

and

David

The official

Smith.

stated on

the

record,

the

Court

ORDERS

the

following:

1.
200)

is

2.

The plaintiff's motion for discovery sanctions

(ECF No.

DENIED.

Defendant Google Inc.'s motion to compel

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

(ECF No.

209)

is

The original motion requested

relief with respect to four categories of documents:
(a)

The

motion

sought

to

compel

the

production

of

certain

documents

Innovate/Protect,

Inc.,

is

GRANTED in part

of

documents.

plaintiff

consulting

The

of

the

counsel

of

dispute

prior

respect

to this

to

days

these

as

seeks

between

for
the

the

to

from

the

category of

(d)

of

itself

As

The

the

Kosak,

and

motion

defendant

with

production

one

of

parties
is

the

record.

Dickstein

The

Order,

two

of

a

named

Shapiro

LLP,

resolved

this

DENIED

as

MOOT

with

of documents.

records

of

Andrew

K.

Lang,

The parties

the

other

named

resolved this dispute

The motion is DENIED as MOOT with respect to

Dickstein Shapiro LLP's

clients

other

for sale,

and the actual

than

the

involvement on behalf

plaintiff

negotiating the

the motion is

documents.

-

2

-

in

offering

the

sale of the patents-in-

sale of the patents-in-suit

stated on the record,

category of

the
the

this

category

The motion seeks to compel the production of certain

patents-in-suit
suit,

The motion

documents.

related to

or

to

by

The motion seeks to compel the production of certain

prior to the hearing.

documents

of

compel

plaintiff.

inventor of the patents-in-suit.

this

investors

date

stated on

Donald

hearing.

category

the

documents

redacted,

motion

of

patents-in-suit,

record

(c)
documents

produce

agreement

inventors

potential

the plaintiff's parent company.

three

information
(b)

to

and DENIED in part with respect to this

Within

shall

financial

provided

to the plaintiff.

DENIED with respect

to this

3.

The

parties

shall

each

bear

their

own

expenses

with

respect to these motions.

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Norfolk,

Virginia

September \fe , 2012

-

3

-